PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Jose Guadalupe Tello-Segundo appeals the 32-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that the district court plainly erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement under the crime of violence provision of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii) (2014) based on his prior Texas conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

*2 Case: 15-41474 Document: 00514071496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2017

No. 15-41474

For the first time on appeal, Tello-Segundo argues that Texas aggravated assault does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii) (2014) because it is broader than generic aggravated assault and does not have as an element the use or threatened use of force. See § 2L1.2, comment. (n.1(B)(iii)) (2014). He contends that § 22.02 is broader than generic aggravated assault because it can be violated with merely a reckless mens rea, and that, under Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), the statute is indivisible with respect to the various applicable mentes reae. Tello- Segundo acknowledges United States v. Guillen-Alvarez , 489 F.3d 197, 200-01 (5th Cir. 2007), which held that the Texas offense of aggravated assault qualifies as generic aggravated assault and is thus a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2 (2014), but he argues that Guillen-Alvarez was wrongly decided. Because Tello-Segundo did not raise this argument in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Wikkerink , 841 F.3d 327, 331 (5th Cir. 2016).

We recently held that Guillen-Alvarez ’s holding remains valid after Mathis . United States v. Shepherd , 848 F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017). Moreover, we are bound by our own precedent unless and until it is altered by the Supreme Court. See Wicker v. McCotter , 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986). We therefore need not consider whether Tello-Segundo’s prior conviction qualified as a crime of violence under the use-of-force prong. See United States v. Castro-Alfonso , 841 F.3d 292, 298 (5th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.